[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdafN-NjGNqqu_6-Qz6qWkZ4VGuBz_iyGirgUscz-Qk6VA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:35:17 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: "Tanwar, Rahul" <rahul.tanwar@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Andriy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
qi-ming.wu@...el.com, yixin.zhu@...ux.intel.com,
cheol.yong.kim@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: intel: Add for new SoC
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 3:24 AM Tanwar, Rahul
<rahul.tanwar@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> Thanks. Yes, i have gone through Rob's generic pinctrl bindings patch
> seriesand i was double minded if you should still proceed with this
> patch or waitfor generic bindings patch to get merged.
It's a compromise actually.
It's a bit of struggle and tough sometimes since I care both
about the kernel and the autonomy of the DT bindings
communities.
We are in a transition phase to YAML bindings, and what is important
for me as maintainer is to have developer buy-in, and
it is more motivating for developers to work on this in-tree
than having patches held back. I personally know how
important it is to feel that things move forward in
development.
Now it should be a separate task on top of what we have,
which is less stressful and gives the feeling of a bit of
accomplishment.
When the new generic YAML bindings are proven to work
on two drivers or so I will be more demanding that people
use them in their bindings from day 1. But we need to make
sure it works first and that is a separate task.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists